Intac v. CA FACTS: The respondents herein, sought for the cancellation of the new TCT, issued in the name of the petitioners, over a property which was originally owned by their father, Ireneo Mendoza and which such TCT was issued by virtue of a deed of absolute sale executed by the latter in favor of his niece, Angelina and her husband Mario Intac. This subject property, however, was in the continuous possession of the respondents and maintained residence there up to the present. It was alleged by the respondents, that the Spouses Intac borrowed the title of the property from Ireneo to be used as collateral for a loan from a financing institution, which the respondents objected when they were informed by their father. The latter, however told them not to worry because Angelina would not take advantage of it. It was further alleged that upon Ireneo's death, both of the parties were informed that it was Ireneo's wish to have the property divided among his heirs and that the petitioners never raised any objection. It was only after the death of their stepmother, Salvacion that the respondents found out that the property was already in the names of the petitioners by virtue of the deed of absolute sale. It is the contention of the respondents, that the new TCT were null and void and had no legal effect whatsoever because the deed of absolute sale was a fictitious or simulated document. The petitioners resisted, claiming that it was a valid sale for a consideration. Both the RTC and CA ruled that sale was null and void for being simulated one considering that the parties had no intention of binding themselves at all and that there was no proof payment with respect to the purchase price claimed by the petitioners to have been paid by them. ISSUE: WON the subject deed of sale was a valid and binding contract between the parties. Petitioners claim that all the elements of a valid contract of sale were present, to wit: a.) Consent; b.) Subject matter; and c.) Price RULING: The Supreme Court held in negative. A contract as defined in the Civil Code, is a meeting of minds, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. Article 1318 provides that there is no contract unless the following requisites concur: 1.) Consent of the contracting parties; 2.) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and 3.) Cause of he obligation which is established. Accordingly, for a contract to be valid, it must have the three essential elements. Consent is essential to the existence of a contract and where it is wanting, the contract is non-existent. In a contract of sale, its perfection is consummated at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing that is the object of the contract and upon the price. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance of the thing and the cause, which are to constitute the contract. In the case at bench, no valid sale of the subject property actually took place between the Ireneo at the petitioners. There was no consideration and no intent to sell it. Consideration and consent are essential elements in a contract of sale. Where a party's consent to a contract of sale is vitiated or where there is lack of consideration due to a simulated price, the contract is null and void ab initio.First Philippine Holding Corporation v. Trans Middle East Equities, Inc. FACTS: The petitioner, whose controlling interest is owned by the Lopez family allegedly sold it shares of common stock in PCIB to the respondent TMEE, which is said to be allegedly owned by Benjamin Romualdez. Both FPHC and TMEE are domestic corporations. The said shares of common stock in PCIB are part of the sequestered properties that were allegedly illegally amassed by Benjamin during the time of Marcos and are among the purported ill-gotten wealth sought to be recovered by the PCGG. According to the petitioner, said shares were obtained by the respondent through fraud and acts contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. The petitioner, claiming ownership of said shares as well as the corresponding rights appurtenant to ownership, filed before the Sandiganbayan its motion to intervene. It is the contention of the petitioner that the sale of the PCIB shares was void ab initio, since the said transaction was allegedly approved by the dummy board and signed by the dummy officers of the petitioner. ISSUE: WON the sales of said PCIB shares is void ab initio. HELD: No. One of the requisites of a valid contract under Article 1318 of the Civil Code is consent and the legal capacity of the parties to give consent. Under Section 23 of the Corporation Code, a corporation can act only through its board of directors. The law is settled that contracts between a corporation and third persons must be made under the authority of its board of directors. The petitioner, for its part, was represented by its board that had the legal right to act on behalf of the corporation and gave its approval and consent to the sale of shares of stock. From that standpoint it is clear that the essential element of consent for the existence of a valid contract was complied with in the transaction in question. The mere allegation of the petitioner that their board of directors who approved the contract were mere dummies of the Marcos and Romualdez group does not make the contract void. The dispositions of the disputed shares were sold by a legitimate and authorized corporate officers, absent of any declaration by the SEC or by any court or tribunal against it legitimacy.